Multiple Levels of Analysis
Models for single-level and multi-level research
Multiple levels of analysis in organizational research:
Advantages and disadvantages to using this approach
Given today's increasingly complex organizational structures, equally nuanced levels of organizational research are required to ensure a full and comprehensive portrait of the environment. Different approaches have been created to deal with the need for organizational complexity. Two dominant approaches are that of multilevel and comparative approaches, both of which "present rather distinct traditions in organization studies, each with its own epistemological assumptions and associated methods" (Lacey & Fiss 2009: 3). Organizations can be compared with other organizations as a whole or they can be compared in terms of their different internal 'levels.' According to the multilevel approach organizations are made up of a series of interconnected individuals, dyads, groups, organizations, industries, markets, and other components based upon the belief that "to examine organizational phenomena is thus to encounter levels issues" (Schnake & Dumler 2003). Multilevel organizational analysis breaks down the organization, implicitly arguing that the study of the 'parts' are just as valuable as the study of the whole. As Rousseau (1985) notes, levels are by definition hierarchical thus the comparisons take place between dissimilar rather than similar levels of the organization (Rousseau 1985:4).
Several different multilevel approaches exist within these theoretical constructs: composition, cross-level, and full multilevel analysis. "Composition theories are essentially conceptual theories of aggregation from one level to the next and ask how, or if, concepts located at level 1 relate to the same concept at level 2 and level 3… In contrast, cross-level theories aim to test whether a variable at level 3 or 2 affects behavior at the lower level 1" (Lacey & Fiss 2009: 4). For example, an analysis of cross-functional teams might attempt to understand how perceptions of organizational mission at the individual level relate to behaviors in dyads and teams. Sometimes certain behaviors such as learning are generalizable from the individual to the collective level; other...
As aggregate data (Rousseau 1985:13).
Cross-level theories, in contrast, do not view different levels as enclosed entities and examine how behaviors at different levels affect one another, specifying a causal effect between different behaviors (Rousseau 1985:14). For example, the intransigent behavior of management and refusal to promote organizational 'learning' has measurable effects upon the behavior of work teams and individuals. A failure of guidance creates a particular kind of organizational 'fallout.'
Finally, multilevel theories attempt to explain whether the relationships of the 'parts' (such as relationships between workers on an individual level) are true of other types of levels in other areas of the organization. For example, these theories ask if cultural conflicts on a team can be analogized the cultural conflicts between different branches of a larger organization (Lacey & Fiss 2009: 5). An organization that does not promote diversity at the macro level may allow intolerance to fester at the local level. Decisions create an organizational culture with holistic implications for the survival of the organization and no policy can be analyzed in isolation from its potentially seismic resonances. Another way to classify these levels of analysis is in terms of whether they relate to individual (compositional); group (cross-level), or mixed level (multiple-level actors) (Schnake & Dumler 2003).
Obviously, there are many different assumptions embedded into the construction of these levels of analysis in terms of the dialogue that takes place between organizational levels. Regarding its standards of proof, multilevel research presents a number of challenges to researchers. The first is misspecification or attributing a behavior to another level other than where it occurs within a specific unit (Rousseau 1985: 5). For example, the behavior of a specific employee might be assumed to be reflective of the behavior of upper-level management or vice versa. However, prejudice on a lower level or incompetence does not necessarily mean that such values are reflective of higher levels of the…
